Who cares about steroids?

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Didn't catch that in the rules.</div>
Just because they aren't in the rules, doesn't mean they aren't a requirement. They are required to be competitive, especially in an athletic competition like the ifbb.  This has already been addressed in this thread.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">But if you think professional body building is the only place where they are using steroids, you're mistaken</div>
I think I mentioned some other sports where they are used such as cycling in my first post in this thread. Drugs are so prevalent these days that they are even used in sports like golf, racquetball, badminton, and maybe even ice curling ?
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">If it is apples to oranges, then what is the fundamental difference between taking steroids and using/doing anything else, supplementation or otherwise, that improves your performance?</div>
The difference is that drugs are dangerous, and other forms of supplementation are not.  Water is not dangerous, protein is not dangerous, but inhibiting estrogen or artificially increasing testosterone, is.  You can point to extreme abuse of protein or water and claim that there is no difference there, but the difference is too obvious to me.  Sports get more competitive every year, and drugs have such a dramatic effect on your performance that the abuse increases every season.  How long will it take for things to get completely out of control in all sports the way they have in bodybuilding?  
Finally, I have no qualms about using steroids myself, as I plan to do exactly that someday.  However, some very talented athletes are opposed to using drugs (especially the huge amounts you have to take in a sport like ifbb bodybuilding), and I think it's a shame that they can't be competitive because of their decision to protect their health.  Athletes who are fine with the risks that are present today might not be ok with risks that might exist tomorrow, as the dosages they are taking now might not be good enough next year.  This is the way I see sports today, and I think it continues to get worse every year.  All I'm doing here is rehashing what I've already said earlier in this thread, so I have nothing more to say on the issue.  I'll let you have the last word.
 
Don`t worry Steve, the roids will go out of fashion pretty soon. The Grail is genetic manipulation now...you`ll have genetically enhanced athletes, instead of chemically enhanced ones:D
 
GENES! GIMME GENES!!!
laugh.gif
 
<div>
(stevejones @ Jun. 14 2007,18:35)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The difference is that drugs are dangerous, and other forms of supplementation are not.  Water is not dangerous, protein is not dangerous, but inhibiting estrogen or artificially increasing testosterone, is.</div>
That is not a difference. Everything and anything can be dangerous if misused, including water, creatine, vitamins, muscle relaxants, anti inflamatories, certain types of equipment, etc. Danger does not make a difference in kind because risk/reward preference is a subjective judgement, not an objective one. And if hormone manipulation is so prevelant and so dangerous, where are the bodies? Your judgement here is subjective with regard to why the hormones are somehow different, and unsupported by any evidence as well. Where are the bodies? No problem spotting NFL players with memory problems and shot joints. No problem finding similar trends in pro baseball players. Where are all the heart attacks, liver transplants, kidney failures, etc? Where are the bodies?

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">You can point to extreme abuse of protein or water and claim that there is no difference there, but the difference is too obvious to me.</div>

What is obvious to you or anyone else is irrelevant because what is obvious to you is not obvious to others and irrelevant to yet others. What is the objective difference? The answer is nothing.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Sports get more competitive every year, and drugs have such a dramatic effect on your performance that the abuse increases every season. </div>

If the effects of drugs on performance are so massive, where are the tons of Barry Bonds, Lance Armstrongs, Wayne Gretskis, etc.? If use is so prevelant and the effects are so prominent, we should be drowning in superstar athletes. We're not, so something in your assessment is incorrect.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">How long will it take for things to get completely out of control in all sports the way they have in bodybuilding?
Finally, I have no qualms about using steroids myself, as I plan to do exactly that someday. However, some very talented athletes are opposed to using drugs (especially the huge amounts you have to take in a sport like ifbb bodybuilding), and I think it's a shame that they can't be competitive because of their decision to protect their health.</div>

Excelling in any elite sport is inherrently unhealthy. If they wanted to protect their health they would lead normal lives, eat normal diets, exercise moderately and not push their bodies to extremes they were never meant to achieve much less maintain for any length of time under normal circumstances required for survival and procreation.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Athletes who are fine with the risks that are present today might not be ok with risks that might exist tomorrow, as the dosages they are taking now might not be good enough next year. This is the way I see sports today, and I think it continues to get worse every year. All I'm doing here is rehashing what I've already said earlier in this thread, so I have nothing more to say on the issue. I'll let you have the last word.</div>

It is a rehash and it suffers from the same problems. There is no rational, objective difference to be drawn by doing anything to improve your performance from eating right to modifying your genetics once that becomes possible. There is no difference. Increased risk reward is not an objective or rational difference, it is based on individual judgement.

There are a thousand things one could point to in elite and professional sports that are inherrently dangerous. Repeated concusions. Repeated bone breaks. Massive wear on the joints which take a major toll later in life for many athletes. Having extremely low body fat or extremely high body weight for prolonged periods of time, neither of which are healthy in the long term. Abuse of pain relief drugs. Marathon runners dying of dehydration, or hyponutremia after a mistaken diagnosis of the former. People breaking their necks while skiing. People dying in flaming NASCAR wrecks. They could be avoided with additional safety, but that would weight the car down. Why is that risk reward judgement allowed, while steroids are out? It makes no sense at all.

There is no rational reason to exclude steroid use as somehow different, unnatural, cheating, or however else one wishes to label use. If health risk were the rational basis, most elite and professional sports would need to be banned period. The real reason is people have been force fed propoganda for years that they are somehow evil, and people apply magical thinking and irrational standards to what is in reality simply another tool to be used to excel toward a goal, and nothing more.
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">There is no rational reason to exclude steroid use as somehow different, unnatural, cheating, or however else one wishes to label use. If health risk were the rational basis, most elite and professional sports would need to be banned period. The real reason is people have been force fed propoganda for years that they are somehow evil, and people apply magical thinking and irrational standards to what is in reality simply another tool to be used to excel toward a goal, and nothing more.</div>

Yup, I'll buy that. Doesn't make me want to take them because that's my choice but I understand why others do and why they would want to. Steroids have been around long enough now for it to be unlikely that there will be a sudden increase in the deaths attributable to them.

Now, if and when Steve J does finally decide to go for it, it will be very interesting to see how much of an effect steroids will actually have on his top level performance. You might think that a natty 800lb deadlifter who starts on a course of steroids would be able to get to top world class standards within a few years. I'm not so sure it'll be anywhere near as straightforward as that.

Steroids definitely raise the bar in many sports but they don't create superstars on their own otherwise we would see superstars everywhere ( as xahrx pointed out). What I do see as a bit of a shame is the possibility that a superior natty athlete finds that he doesn't respond to drugs as well as a lesser natty athlete and so, no matter how many chemicals he takes or how good his training is, he just can't beat the lesser athlete anymore. It's tough but so is life in general. Somebody has to win and somebody has to lose. The sooner we get over that little hurdle, the better.
 
<div>
(Lol @ Jun. 15 2007,06:49)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">What I do see as a bit of a shame is the possibility that a superior natty athlete finds that he doesn't respond to drugs as well as a lesser natty athlete and so, no matter how many chemicals he takes or how good his training is, he just can't beat the lesser athlete anymore.</div>
I think that this is exactly the point of how AAS ruin sports and make it so some people can't compete when they would normally be one of the superstars.

You could be  the best &quot;clean&quot; athlete at a given sport and not be able to compete at a pro level because you aren't taking AAS.  When lesser athletes can because they do use AAS.  Or as Lol said the true better athlete may not respond to the AAS to the same level as a lesser athlete.  That is what ruins sports to me.  It takes the natural law of &quot;the better man wins&quot; out of the equation and makes it &quot;the better man at responding to AAS wins&quot;.

The only reason we don't have thousands of Barry Bonds running around is because Barry was a genetically superior athlete to begin with and since they are pretty much all using AAS he is still the better athlete.  But would he be better than some of the less natural athletes that are using AAS if he didn't use them as well?  Maybe, but I doubt it.  Look what happened to Mark McGuire when he went on AAS!  He went from an average pro ball player to a superstar.

Yes it is a choice to use AAS and a choice that everyone should be able to make.  But I still believe that sports would be much different (for the better) if everyone wasn't using.  And it does &quot;force&quot; anyone who wants to become a pro athlete to use AAS when otherwise they might not have.  Yes it is still a choice but a choice I don't think they should have to make in that regard.

Take two identical twins that are equally talented at a particular sport and put one of them on AAS.  I would bet pretty much anything that the one on AAS would out perform the one who wasn't by a long shot.

And comparing AAS to protein powders and multivitamins is like comparing a Ford Pinto to a Ferrari.  Yeah, they are both cars but they aren't even remotely at the same performance level.
 
<div>
(Bulldog @ Jun. 15 2007,10:04)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I think that this is exactly the point of how AAS ruin sports and make it so some people can't compete when they would normally be one of the superstars.</div>
Would have could have should have.  Maybe they'd be great if they had a better coach or better training techniques.  What again is the difference?

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">You could be  the best &quot;clean&quot; athlete at a given sport and not be able to compete at a pro level because you aren't taking AAS.  When lesser athletes can because they do use AAS.</div>

And suppose you're a Mormon and you can't compete because you can't train as hard because your wives need more attention than a regular monogamous guy has to give his one wife?  There's God knows how many variables involved in making an athelte great or even good.  Focussing on one, be it genetics or steroids, as some kind of lynch pin really makes no sense.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Or as Lol said the true better athlete may not respond to the AAS to the same level as a lesser athlete.  That is what ruins sports to me.  It takes the natural law of &quot;the better man wins&quot; out of the equation and makes it &quot;the better man at responding to AAS wins&quot;. </div>

What if, instead of it being steroids, it was a new training technique.  Athlete A was better than B, but now training technique X is all the rage, and B uses it and responds incredibly and ups his game substantially, while A languishes despite his best efforts, or any number of other reasons.  Suppose the new training has risks and is harder on joints athlete A would rather save for later in life.  Why would this not also 'ruin' sports?  Once more, no rational difference, just the magical impression that steroids are 'different' or 'bad' somehow.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">The only reason we don't have thousands of Barry Bonds running around is because Barry was a genetically superior athlete to begin with and since they are pretty much all using AAS he is still the better athlete.  But would he be better than some of the less natural athletes that are using AAS if he didn't use them as well?  Maybe, but I doubt it.  Look what happened to Mark McGuire when he went on AAS!  He went from an average pro ball player to a superstar.</div>

But you contradict yourself.  Either steroids do or do not make you a superstar.  You can't say on one hand that their use alone is enough to unbalance a competition to the point where it's 'ruined', and then say a lot of people have used them and not seem much noticable improvement if any.  If you want it both ways then you have to admit they are not the lynch pin issue so many make them out to be.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Yes it is a choice to use AAS and a choice that everyone should be able to make.  But I still believe that sports would be much different (for the better) if everyone wasn't using. </div>

Why?  If that's your aesthetic opinion then fine, everyone has a right to their own subjective judgement.  But is there any objective reason for this statement that you might put forward?

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">And it does &quot;force&quot; anyone who wants to become a pro athlete to use AAS when otherwise they might not have.  Yes it is still a choice but a choice I don't think they should have to make in that regard.</div>

All well and good, but once more is their any objective reason or just your feelings involved?

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Take two identical twins that are equally talented at a particular sport and put one of them on AAS.  I would bet pretty much anything that the one on AAS would out perform the one who wasn't by a long shot.</div>

Once again, they either are or aren't this magic pill you can take.  What about the twins' training, the same?  Nutrition, the same?  Motivation, they same?  Psychology, the same?  Available equipment/facilities, the same?:  Coaches, the same?  Injury history, the same?  All else being equal and assuming the best case in everything, yes then the steroid using twin will likely out perform the one not using.  But all else is not, nor is it ever, equal.  As such there are no lynch pins, no magic pills, nothing but tools that anyone can decide to use or not to advance toward their chosen goal.  Some tools are more effective than others, so what?  Effectiveness of a tool should not be grounds for excluding its use.  At least I can't see the logic behind doing so, nor why it should only apply to steroids and not making sure all athletes get the same gym time, coaching and training, psychological treatment, facilities, etc.

When is anything ever equal between athlete?  Never that's why there are winners and losers.  There is no such thing as a level playing field, if there were games would never end or always be tied.  Racer would start and finish at the same instant.  There would be no medals to give out, no trophies.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">And comparing AAS to protein powders and multivitamins is like comparing a Ford Pinto to a Ferrari.  Yeah, they are both cars but they aren't even remotely at the same performance level.</div>

Irrelevant.  Or, if you want it to be relevant, then what you're saying is we should ban Ferraris and the like so people who can only afford or who only want to drive Pintos have a 'fair' chance to win.  If those are the rules you want to set up, fine.  People should abide by them an not try and sneak Ferraris into the race.

But that doesn't change the fact that there is no fundamental difference between a Ferrari and a Pinto.  They're both cars, they both get you to where you want to go.  The Ferrari will simply excel under certain circumstances.  That is, so long as the driver knows how to handle it and isn't driving in a snow storm, or a rally race.  In which case the experienced Pinto driver with chains on his tires or a properly modified car would likely have an edge over a teenager with a learner's permit in a Ferrari in either instance.  As with steroids, the Ferrari is no lynch pin. Nor is it even always an advantage, that depends on the circumstances and how it's used.
 
Comparing different training techniques has absolutely nothing to do with the use of performance enhancing drugs.  That is a completely different aspect in and of itself.  Stop using other &quot;aspects&quot; of enhancing performance to justify the use of drugs.

We are discussing AAS and their affects on performance.  Not protein, multivitamins or training techniques.  They are completely different aspects of enhancing performance that can not be compared in any way shape or form.  Sorry, but they are NOT the same and can not be compared.

Yes that is only my opinion!  
wink.gif
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> All else being equal and assuming the best case in everything, yes then the steroid using twin will likely out perform the one not using.</div>

Exactly.
wink.gif
 
<div>
(Bulldog @ Jun. 15 2007,12:26)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Comparing different training techniques has absolutely nothing to do with the use of performance enhancing drugs.  That is a completely different aspect in and of itself.  Stop using other &quot;aspects&quot; of enhancing performance to justify the use of drugs.

We are discussing AAS and their affects on performance.  Not protein, multivitamins or training techniques.  They are completely different aspects of enhancing performance that can not be compared in any way shape or form.  Sorry, but they are NOT the same and can not be compared.

Yes that is only my opinion!  
wink.gif
</div>
Well your opinion as I've said is irrelevant. Come up with an objective reason why they are fundamentally different from any other tool people use to enhance their performance. The whole point I'm making is they are not different, your answer to which is 'they are because I say they are'. Not good enough.

Danger or risk/reward is not an objective reason to seperate them, it is a subjective judgement. Also other substances and things which help performance can be just as dangerous and in fact have claimed many more lives than steroid use/abuse has.

Effectiveness is not an objective reason to seperate them, because it can be applied to anything and everything that effectively enhances performance, from creatine to training techniques. That you don't like that doesn't make it untrue. You can't deny one tool because it's effective but then allow others which can give just as much an edge.

Not to mention that the effectiveness of steroids minus training, genetics and other factors being optimal is doubtful. Simply loading up on testosterone or any other steroid doesn't automatically make it easier to hit a baseball, sink a three point shot, slap shot a puck from across the rink, run a mile in under 4 minutes, or any other number of things which are the substance of sports. Steroids absent training, diet and discipline give you shrunken nuts and slightly lower body fat that you'd otherwise have. They can't even be counted on for a consistent libido boost so they don't even make you screw better by default.

Bottom line is it's all a load of hogwash. People have been brainwashed into thinking they're evil, therefore even though there is no fundamental difference between them and any other substance or other type of tool one might use to enhance one's performance, they get seperated out as special. They are not. They are as natural as protein. Your body produces steroids every single day, your bloodstream is loaded with them. Your health is dependent on them. Calling them uinnatural, a cheat, or applying any other magical thinking to them is simply unwarranted and unsupported by facts.
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> Your body produces steroids every single day, your bloodstream is loaded with them. Your health is dependent on them.</div>
SPORTS and youth issues aside, this is my issue. My bloodstream is no longer &quot;loaded&quot; with them, giving me one reason to think about going 'on', but even if I were younger, my BB goals would be brought closer with them. It's obvious and well known that they assist in strength and size, amongst many other things, and although I and most others have not hit our &quot;genetic limits&quot; (that's almost impossible IMO), any extra &quot;tool&quot; for acheiving goals is a bonus when you've done your best and stalled out on gains.
If 'roids actually caused rage, death, certain heart attacks and such, it wouldn't be a great idea, but those myths have been debunked for the most part I think, and the real enemy of using is lack of education and protocol; like lifting heavy to keep gains.
Oh, and the illegality factor, of course.
rock.gif
 
So let me get this straight......You are saying that taking AAS to raise your testosterone levels to 10 times the levels that you would have naturally is the same as drinking a couple of whey protein shakes every day? OK, if you say so. I will always disagree with that and you will always disagree with me so I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

That being said, I do believe that HRT should be used by anyone whose natural levels have dropped below the normal range because it certainly can improve your health and prolong and improve your quality of life as you get older. I have bottom end natural T levels (at least I did two years ago when I had them tested) and I'm only 38 years old. I have considered going on TRT and probably will within a couple of years. But I don't put that kind of use in the same category as using AAS to raise levels way above the normal range to try to get an edge in sports.

I guess that is all I can say about it.
 
If I took a calculator into a maths exam (cleverly concealed of course) where the rules state &quot;No calculators!&quot; and if I did rather better than all the other students because of using it, then I would have had an unfair advantage and would have been classified as a cheat.

There's nothing wrong with calculators; people have used them for years and they are very helpful tools. But if I used one in an exam where they weren't allowed (and claimed I wasn't using one) then I would be cheating and if caught I should be stripped of my grade.

So, as I see it, taking AAS is not cheating, but taking AAS specifically to help performance in an event where the drugs are banned is cheating, even if all the competitors are doing it; they are all cheating.

The problem with this analogy is that it doesn't really fit. I could use a calculator for all my preparation for the exam but not use it during the exam and that would be fine (although a good way to ensure a low grade!). Can't do that with AAS. Can't prepare with it and then take it away on the day of the competition.

I just wish the sporting governing bodies would make up their minds about what they want to do about it. It's all so confusing. I hate seeing athletes stripped of medals for use of banned substances. Why the devil can't the testing show up banned substances prior to the competition? If an athlete is allowed to compete then that should mean that all testing has taken place and the athlete has passed the tests. If he then performs particularly brilliantly it shouldn't mean he has to go in for a new testing session. If he wants to compete again, he'll have to go through the tests next time.

If use of AAS is one day permitted at the Olympics then it will be very interesting to see whether a 600lb C&amp;J might actually be possible. I'd like to see it done.
cool.gif


This is a late night rambling so please excuse if it makes no sense whatsoever!
tounge.gif
 
What are the categories here? It seems we have:
1.) AA's in sports / cheating &amp; legal issues
2.) AA's in BB competition / cheating issues
3.) AA's in personal use, heavy
4.) AA's in personal use, light
5.) HRT
6.) AA's compared to other tools

No opinion stated; just clarifying a bit. I put light personal use just above HRT because I see people like me who would rather have just a bit more than the barely anabolic levels of HRT. Having not done them, I can't speak for the &quot;addictive&quot; nature of them or how they would compare to recreational drugs, where you tend to want more and more. For me, I should hope that sanity would prevail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top